TOTA SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 747 · Decided: 01-04-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

TOTA SINGH & ANR. 
v. 
A 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
APRIL 1, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. ss. 378 and 386-Appeal against 
order of acquittal-Interference by appellate court-Jurisdiction of-
No interference unless approach of trial court vitiated by some manifest 
illegality. 
' 
The appellants were tried by the Court of Sessions on charges 
under section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC and section 323 IPC 
read with section 34 IPC, and the Sessions Judge acquitted the appel· 
lants of all the charges laid against them on the grounds: (i) that there 
c 
was no proper explanation for the inordinate delay in reporting ttie 
crime to the police; (ii) that there was also no adequate proof of any 
D 
motive; (iii) that it was not a pre-planned attack;. and (iv) that the 
testimony of P. W. 2 and P. W. 6 who were examined as eye-witnesses to 
prove the occurrence, could not be safely accepted and acted upon as 
true. In the absence of any independent corroboration of the testimony 
given by them, since they had also been appearing as prosecution 
witnesses in a large number of police cases. 
E 
The High Court, however, in appeal by the respondent-State 
~ade an independent reappraisal of the evidence and set aside the 
acquittal, merely on the ground that as a result of such reappreciation it 
was inclined to reach a conclusion different from the one recorded by 
the Sessions Judge. 
F 
Allowing the appeal by the appellants, this Court, 
HELD: I. The approach made by the High Court to a considera· 
lion of the appeal was wholly vitiated by a manifest illegality inasmuch 
as the High Court has acted in total disregard of the principles re· 
G 
peatedly laid down by the Supreme Court delineating the restricted 
grounds on which alone interference may he made by a court of appeal 
with an order of acquittal passed by a lower Court. [7510] 
The High Court in the instant case, has not found that the reasons 
given by the Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of P. W. 2 and 
H 
747 
748 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
P. W. 6 were either unreasonable or perverse. [75IB] 
2.1 The mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a 
reappreciatioo of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance 
with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court 
B 
below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside 
the acquittal. [751C] 
2.2 The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with an 
appeal against an order of acquittal is Circumscribed by the limitation 
that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the 
approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence 
C in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion 
recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly 
arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, there· 
fore, liable to be characterised as perverse. [751D-E] 
0 
3. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence 
adduced in the case and the Court below has taken a view which is a 
plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with an 
order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the 
court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous. [751E] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
E No. 225 of 1978. 
From the Judgment and order dated 19.4.1978 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1106 of 1974. 
F 
A.N. Mulla, Mrs. Pravawati, Mrs. Urmila Kapur and Ms. S. 
J anani for the Appellants. 
G 
R.S. Sodhi for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. After hearing Shri A.N. Mulla, Sr. 
Advocate for appellants and Shri R.S. Sodhi, Counsel appearing on 
behalf of the respondent and having carefully examined all aspects of 
the case in the light of the submissions made at the Bar, we have 
unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that this appeal has to be 
H allowed. 
\ 
TOTA SINGH v. PUNJAB (ERADI, J.l 
749 
The four appellants before us-Tota Singh, Dauli Singh, Mithu A 
Singh and Mukhtiar Singh were tried by the Court of Sessions, Farid-
kot on charges under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and 
Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. After detailed considera-
tion of the entire evidence adduced in the case, the learned Sessions 
Judge by his judgment dated May 30, 1974 acq

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.